Nephilim and other 'Weird Stuff' in Genesis 6-9

^{Gen.
6:1} When men began to increase in number on the earth and daughters were born to them, ² the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. ³Then the LORD said, “My Spirit will not contend with man forever, for he is mortal; his days will be a hundred and twenty years.” 4 The Nephilim were on the earth in those days — and also afterward — when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them. They were the heroes of old, men of renown.

Who are the 'sons of God' and the 'daughters of men' and is there a problem here?

Yes there is a problem here: the implication is that the 'sons of God' ought not to be marrying the 'daughters of men'. The result of this prohibited union is the birth of Nephilim—giants, warriors, 'men of renown'. Their descendents were also found after the flood in the land of Canaan, although no explanation is given as to how they survived the flood, or how they arose again if they were all wiped out by the flood (see Numbers 13, Joshua 15:13, Judges 1:20).

We should not lose sight of the main point of this difficult passage: a stage in the progress of evil has been reached such that God is now provoked to act in judgment.

Who are the 'sons of God' that they should produce such offspring?

Short answer: we can't be sure, and it's only incidental to the thrust of the passage.
Long answer: there have been three suggestions over the centuries, each of which can be defended from the Hebrew grammar[1]

The 'sons of God' are the sons of Seth and the 'daughters of men' are the daughters of Cain. This understanding is based on the view that the line of Seth is the line of promise, the godly line of descendents of Adam, whereas the line of Cain bears Cain's curse—it is merely human and without hope as it wanders the earth. The problem with these groups intermarrying is supposedly the defilement of the purity of the lineage of Seth. While this is a fairly sensible and plausible approach, it does involve some 'leaps' of imagination. For example, the text never tells us that Seth and Cain's offspring are called 'sons of God' or 'daughters of men', nor is their inter-marriage forbidden. This interpretation also does not account for the existence of Nephilim and their descendants after the flood.
The second possibility is that the 'sons of God' are angels or some other heavenly beings that are having illicit sexual relations with human women[2] This understanding was popular in Judaism in the inter-testamental period, and may inform the background to 1 Pet 3:19-20 and Jude 6-7. This interpretation, however, does not fit in its original context of the flood where the judgment is against humanity, rather than the angelic 'sons of God'. To the contrary, in 6:3, the offenders are specifically labelled 'in the flesh'. It also contradicts Jesus teaching that angels do not marry (Mt 22:30; Mk 12:25).
In an attempt to counter these objections, some have suggested that the angelic 'sons of God' take possession of human bodies. That is, cases of angelic possession (the counterpart of demonic possession???) are said to be the source of the Nephilim. Given the nature of such angelic rebellion, this interpretation wants to label 'fallen angels' (ie demons) as 'sons of God', all of which makes no sense!
The third possibility is a little more complex, but ultimately the one with the most credible support. Here, the phrase 'sons of God' is literally taken to mean 'divine kings' [3], in line with other ancient Jewish interpretation of that phrase to mean royalty. The suggestion being made is that the royal successors of Lamech (Gen 4:23) married girls outside their social status and took great numbers of them into harems. These powerful rulers were supposed to administer justice but instead they claimed divinity for themselves (declared themselves to be 'sons of God'). They violated the divine order by forming royal harems and perverted their mandate to rule the earth under God. Their offspring were the Nephilim—characterised by physical might and military-political dominance. Hence, the 'Anak descendants' of the Nephilim after the flood are not direct genealogical descendents but merely take the same role upon themselves, perhaps making the same claims to divinity or divine power [4].

What might we conclude? The most straightforward understanding is (i) the inter-marriage of the lines of Seth and Cain. It is plausible, although lacking support from the text itself. The best contemporary scholarship prefers (iii) the powerful upper-class who claim divine authority for their rule and treat the lower-classes with disdain. Which is correct? Take your pick—no one will ever conclusively prove you wrong!

Other Flood accounts in Babylonian literature

This is an excerpt from a longer article by Stuart Holman.
To read the full article, click on this link.

The biblical account of Noah in Genesis appears to be an embarrassingly similar narrative to the story of Utnapishtim in the Gilgamesh Epic. The texts of the Gilgamesh Epic date back to the Babylonian Empire in the seventh century B.C., much earlier than any existent biblical text. Does this mean that the Genesis account is significantly discredited because it is shown to be a reworking of another source, a polytheistic source, and therefore not truly the word of God? Not necessarily. In fact, far from being an embarrassment, it strengthens our view of Scripture and enhances, in a unique way, our understanding of the God of the Bible.The remarkable similarities of the account of the flood in Genesis 6-9 and the narrative within the Gilgamesh Epic are well documented [5].

Both are narratives of Divine universal judgement on mankind by flood. A righteous man and his kin are saved in obedience to special knowledge of the impending deluge received from deity by building a large bitumen covered timber boat to exact specifications. The chosen people, along with a stock of animals, are taken into the boat and witness the terrible rain and flood which covers the tops of the mountains, destroying all other human and animal life. As the waters subside, the boat lodges on a mountain, a series of birds are released for reconnaissance and the people and animals eventually leave the boat in safety to repopulate the earth. Both narratives conclude with the righteous man, prior to receiving divine blessing, offering a pleasing sacrifice. Such extensive similarities suggest that both have a common ancestor, not known or found, possibly an oral source.

Of much greater interest are the contrasts between the two. We now have two accounts of the same story; one which has been breathed and interpreted for us by God and another which has remained mere general revelation. That which God especially wants us to understand from the account of Noah is highlighted by contrast. His perfect, just, gracious, and awesome nature stand out clearly against the divided, discordant, and capricious Babylonian pantheon. The people of God are able to trust in a faithful covenant keeping creator whereas the people of Uruk are left to wonder what will be their fate at the hands of their capricious gods.

Such a stark contrast prompts the question of a hidden agenda in the Genesis account. Knowing that the story of the flood was transmitted throughout the ancient world in various forms, it would be safe to assume that the Jews knew of the Gilgamesh Epic from sources outside their own sacred texts. It may be possible that the story of Noah was directed as religious polemic against Babylon. Indeed, when one considers the other two cycles of the the Genesis prologue, there is little doubt of such intent. The story of the tower of Babel pours derision upon the Babylonians and the story of creation and the garden of Eden also contrasts other parallel ancient near eastern literature. The story of one supreme Creator in special covenant relationship with an elected people (the Jews) is intended to engage and impact the polytheistic Babylonians, while giving assurance and religious higher ground to the Jews. So we see that the literary historicity of the two accounts are con-substantiated. The comparison of these two narratives provides a unique opportunity to appreciate afresh the God who spared Noah from judgement in order to further his purpose of ultimately restoring fallen humanity to perfection.

Notes:

1. Human beings are called 'sons of God' in Hos 1:10 and they are called 'divine kings' in 2 Sam 7:14; Ps 2:7; 82:6. Angels are also called 'sons of God' because they belong to the world of 'elohim', although not in a mythological, physical or genealogical sense.

2. So, Derek Kidner, Genesis. Tyndale OT Commentary series (Downers Grove Il., IVP, 1967)83-84.

3. See M.G. Kline, "Divine Kingship and Sons of God in Gen 6:1-4" Westminster Journal of Theology 24 (1962): 187-204.

4. Bruce K Waltke, Genesis, a commentary (Grand Rapids Il, Zondervan:2001) 116-117.

5. E. Fisher, Gilgamesh and Genesis; the flood story in context, Catholic Biblical Quarterly. July 1970. 32:402-403.